WSU Vs. Colorado: Buffs Blow Cougars Away, 71-60
by Jeff Nusser on Jan 7, 2012 4:41 PM PST
in 2011-2012 WSU Basketball News
Email
PrintWith its third poor performance in four games, a 71-60 loss to Colorado, the season seems to sliding precipitously in the wrong direction as WSU dropped to 1-3 in the Pac-12 and 9-7 overall today.
The Cougs were out of their element from the very beginning in this one. Ken Bone elected to bench Reggie Moore and start Dexter Kernich-Drew -- not for disciplinary reasons, but to get more length and athleticism into the lineup against a long and athletic opponent. In a related move, WSU played zone exclusively from the start.
Both decisions backfired. The WSU offense sputtered out of the gate, unable to find any kind of rhythm. The Cougars would score just 0.83 points per possession in the first half on their way to a 32-24 deficit.
WSU easily could have trailed by much more than eight at the break, but Colorado's poor shooting from long range against the zone -- 3-for-15 -- kept the Buffaloes within reach. Most of the looks were wide open, which would be a portent of things to come in the second half. And not in a good way.
Colorado has shot just a shade under 40 percent from three as a team this year, and when they continued to get open looks against the zone in the second half, the shots (predictably) started to fall. The Buffs hit four of their first five attempts from three, the last of which stretched their lead to an insurmountable 22 points with 11:21 to go. They would finish hitting 6-of-8 in the second half.
Through it all, Bone searched for answers by shuffling personnel, but all that really seemed to do was continue to prohibit WSU from finding any rhythm. It wasn't until he finally switched to man-to-man defense and stuck mostly with a lineup of Moore, Faisal Aden, Marcus Capers, Abe Lodwick and Brock Motum (with some DaVonte Lacy and Kernich-Drew mixed in) that the team finally started to put a dent in the lead.
WSU would whittle the lead down to eight with 2:42 to play, but a pair of missed layups by Moore and Aden sealed the deal.
The team started slow again, and there's lots of room for second guessing Bone's decisions. A frustrating weekend all around.
102 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
What happened to the halfcourt trap?
Last year it was used a decent amount and seemed to force a few turnovers a game. At the beginning of this season they employed it, but after getting burned a couple times early in the 76 Classic I haven’t seen it since.
I don't have anything nice to say so I'm not going to say anything.
"Tonight, we skate with them. Tonight, we stay with them. And we shut them down because we can!" | Herb Brooks
No kidding
I know I saw on twitter recently that 4 years ago today we were 13-0 and ranked #4 in the nation. Feels a lot longer than 4 years.
Streamin' and Threadin' and Shellin | @shellin1
The class of '12 will be the first WSU class without an NCAA team since '06
The blood of "The Five" cries for justice.
Yup, not a single "star" on that team either
just lots of good role players who turned hustle into an art form and played D as well as anyone in the country.
Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits
by Say Howdy Kid on Jan 7, 2012 6:58 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, lots of good role players
One of which has been in and out of the NBA, and three others who have had nice professional careers abroad.
People seriously undersell the talent on that team.
I think his point was
that they weren’t massively in-demand recruits.
I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. Ugh
What? I know D. Low's dad and can confirm he was also...
.
….sought by the Zags and, I believe, Utah!
Cowgill was second team all-state from Texas. He must have gotten some big-time offers.
Rochestie signed with basketball powerhouse Tulane.
What do you mean they weren’t “massively in-demand recruits”??
.
.
.
.
(sarcasm alert)
by westsidecougar1 on Jan 7, 2012 8:24 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, that was the beauty of the team - no *STARS*
Everyone contributed to the success. Quality guys who put the team first and worked harder than the competition. My kind of hoopsters.
Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits
by Say Howdy Kid on Jan 7, 2012 8:18 PM PST up reply actions
And another thing about the Bennett teams
was that they were incredibly disciplined both mentally and physically. The athletes had to bring their physical talents to the court but in my opinion the discipline pounded into their brains and conditioning was extreme to the point that games were the easy part of the game. Which made winning that much easier.
Discipline and conditioning. Can we say those are hallmarks of the current team? I don’t know – I’m not there to watch how the team works out but the results so far seem to show a lack of both discipline and effort which is completely unacceptable.
Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits
by Say Howdy Kid on Jan 7, 2012 8:36 PM PST up reply actions
"...they were incredibly disciplined both mentally and physically."
Objection, your honor.
You can’t prove that with data. It’s all speculation.
(wink)
by westsidecougar1 on Jan 7, 2012 9:48 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, the world would be such a boring place without opinions and speculation <;
Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits
by Say Howdy Kid on Jan 7, 2012 9:58 PM PST up reply actions
So, are using "stars" as a synonym for "prima donnas" or some other derogatory term?
Because I’d argue Low and Weaver were stars by the definition of “really good basketball players.”
by Jeff Nusser on Jan 7, 2012 8:50 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
I say there were no *STARS* on those teams
because everyone, including Low and Weaver did whatever it took to put the team in position to win. If the shots weren’t there they were happy to dish assists and rebound. And they did the hard stuff too like playing shut-down defense and forcing turnovers.
The entire group played within the “team” concept where everybody swung their swords as efficiently as possible, under control and lethal when they got the lead. They kept the defensive pressure up and stomped on the other teams throat when they got them down. Like in Lawrence of Arabia: take no prisoners. And all with no STARS.
Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits
by Say Howdy Kid on Jan 7, 2012 9:43 PM PST up reply actions
If only we could could have...
.
…cloned D. Low, Weaver, Cowgill, Harmeling, Rochestie, and Baynes.
Oops…slap me…I’m living in the past again.
Haha.
by westsidecougar1 on Jan 7, 2012 10:01 PM PST up reply actions
I really don't want to get into some big debate about this
But the romanticizing of everything the Bennett teams did as if they were perfect gets old. Unlike Klay Thompson, Weaver and Low had very good teammates who they could depend on to perform — that’s why they were happy to dish, rebound, whatever. It’s amazing what having a lot of talent around you does for chemistry.
Dick Bennett’s squads played withing the “team” concept and they were terrible. Why? Why were Tony Bennett’s teams so much better?
by Jeff Nusser on Jan 7, 2012 10:04 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Thank you
The nostalgia of the Bennett era gets to be a little much, especially in these “tough times.”
The blood of "The Five" cries for justice.
Dick Bennett had to do the ugly part of introducing the 'system' to WSU hoops
Tony inherited his dad’s team which was pounded into shape to play capital D defense and Tony added to it with a few fortunate additions like Low and Weaver and Rochestie. But as westside points out, none of them were sure things when they came in. It was only with their buy-in of the Bennett system of defense first and team ball above everything else that they became the great successes they were.
Individually the players were fair. Together they were outstanding. Truly a case of the sum being greater than the parts.
Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits
by Say Howdy Kid on Jan 7, 2012 10:15 PM PST up reply actions
So, the answer to the question is that the talent was worse, right?
“It was only with their buy-in of the Bennett system of defense first and team ball above everything else that they became the great successes they were.” Uh, Dick Bennett’s three teams put defense first and team ball above all else. Didn’t help them much, did it?
How long does it take to successfully implement a new system?
You’re not saying that you would expect a team to win the very first year that it was completely revamped offensively and defensively or even in year two, are you?
From what I’ve seen over the years it seems like it takes 3-4 years for a turnaround to happen. This is coach Bones 3rd year and from what I’ve read on this blog next year will be his first season with his own recruits top to bottom so next year of the year after should tell the tale for Bone.
Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits
by Say Howdy Kid on Jan 7, 2012 10:28 PM PST up reply actions
All things being equal I'd say it's the players
but Pullman is never going to attract 4-5 * talent. At least we never has in the past so the question is how do we beat more talented programs with our 2-3 * talent?
In my opinion the only way we have a chance is by doing the one thing no one else is, and that’s playing All Star defense which is more about desire than talent. That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits
by Say Howdy Kid on Jan 7, 2012 11:02 PM PST up reply actions
And I think that's a fair argument
But let’s look at who really accomplished that — basically, it was two recruiting classes who did all of it. I’m not sure it’s reasonable to assume that WSU ever would have been able to duplicate the success of 2007 and 2008.
It’s not about maximizing “lesser” talent. You can’t just take garbage and turn it into a Sweet 16 team. It’s about finding talented guys whose strengths fit what you’re trying to do. And I think there are serious questions about whether the talent was setting up for that kind of run again.
Coming off two NCAAs, what did Tony Bennett and his staff bring in? Klay Thompson, sure. And if you want to give him credit for DeAngelo Casto, who he lucked into, fine. But Mike Harthun? Nick Witherill? Anthony Brown?
Do you think Marcus Capers magically develops an offensive game with Bennett around? Charlie Enquist becomes legitimate frontcourt threat? Abe Lodwick becomes the next Daven Harmeling?
Is Tony Bennett just that much better at developing talent? I don’t know the answer to that, but I don’t believe those guys would have developed much more under Bennett than they have under Bone.
2007 and 2008 were lightning in a bottle. And Tony knew it.
Couple of things:
1. When he is talking about “lesser” talent, I think it’s more in the conventional sense of the word applying to basketball (meaning big scorers). As far as what the Bennett’s needed they were very talented, but maybe not so much overall.
2. Regarding sustainability/development. That’s part of the problem of when he left. We’ll never really know whether it would have been sustainable or not, and really anyone arguing one way or the other is just speculating. We talk about how we need to give Bone a good amount of time to see what he’s about, and I think the same applies to Tony. Granted his situation was different since he was carrying on from the previous coach, but I still think it applies. Take what he’s done at Virginia for example (and yes I realize that you can’t say success at one school automatically translates to success at another). They had their struggles the first couple of years, but now they’re sitting at 12-1. I guess my point is that I don’t know how we can say for certain that it wasn’t sustainable. Sweet Sixteen every year definitely wasn’t, but I don’t think at least being in the hunt for a berth every year necessarily was out of the question.
"Tonight, we skate with them. Tonight, we stay with them. And we shut them down because we can!" | Herb Brooks
Totally agree!
And that means that readers have to stop assuming the success WAS sustainable based on the success of two teams out of six with one exceptional core of players.
Low, Weaver, Rochestie and Baynes were four of the best Pac10 players of the last decade
And they were all on the same team!
Say what you want about Tony’s development, the idea that we were winning WITHOUT four star talent is ridiculous.
Feels like development is being thrown around while evaluation is being ignored
by Brian Floyd on Jan 8, 2012 10:26 AM PST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
DING DING DING DING DING
WE HAVE A WINNER
by Jeff Nusser on Jan 8, 2012 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
You're definition of "best" must be more inclusive than mine.
Are you saying they were top 20 of the last decade? Top 30? Top 50?
I’m interested in where you think they actually fall in a rough guesstimate sort of way.
i'd put all four of them in the top 10%
if there have been 600-700 players come through in the past 10 years, they’re probably all in the top 60-70.
That seems about right, but without a list of the players we're comparing them too it is tough to tell.
I feel fairly comfortable putting Low and Weaver in that top 10 to 15 percent. On second thought, I would probably put Rochestie and Baynes in the above average group (top 20% – 30%). There have been a lot of amazing (and slightly below amazing but very quality) players in the Pac-12 over the last decade.
Let's go with your opinion on that.
I’m not going to claim to be an expert on WSU basketball players.
I probably am elevating Low and Weaver because without them Rochestie and Baynes didn’t accomplish as much.
Low and Weaver didn't accomplish much without Rochestie and Baynes, either.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Jan 8, 2012 3:21 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
My inclination is similar
Low and Weaver were great; Rochestie and Baynes were very good but not quite great. Of course there were other good players on those teams too (Cowgill, Clark).
Frankly, I think this whole debate about “sustainability” is missing the point. Every team has ups and downs, other than like Duke or Kansas.
The idea that Tony Bennett was going to turn Washington State into a perennial second-weekend NCAA team seems like a straw man— you can count the number of programs like that on your fingers, and probably don’t even need to bother with a second hand.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
I'll disagree with that, but it's not really my point.
My point was that the idea that Bennett succeeded with lesser talent is pretty ridiculous. That 2008 team had Weaver, Low, Rochestie and Baynes all on the same team. Those teams were so talented that Cowgill, Clark and Koprivica were reduced to being role players.
That's true, those were certiantly talented teams.
Even though I would say they overachieved their talent in some absolutely loaded conferences.
I don't know about that
The teams more talented than WSU in those two years were UCLA, Oregon and Stanford and we lost to those teams routinely.
They finished 3rd both years
And went 11-7 in their sweet 16 year.
It’s not like they ran roughshod through the conference.
Damn you and your facts
I was just about to correct myself.
While we outperformed preseason expectations beyond anyone’s dreams, it’s pretty obvious in hindsight we were the 2nd or 3rd most talented team in the conference.
I don't think I agree that you were the 2nd or 3rd most talented team in the conference.
2nd or 3rd best, yes, the results prove that. But as was argued earlier, a lot of that was due to factors other than what I would describe as pure basketball talent. There’s a reason the pre-season expectations were so low, people didn’t see much talent there. They were obviously somewhat wrong about that, but I think those seasons were good examples of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.
Stanford, even though they only finished behind WSU in 06-07
I don’t remember the roster of every other team very well and don’t have the time to look it up right now.
Even a team like UW those years could be said to have had more “talent” than WSU. Hawes and Brockman have both had fairly successful NBA careers, Pondexter got drafted in the 1st round. (Please don’t take this as an opportunity to rub in your record against us those years, I’m well aware that their talent didn’t translate into wins).
stanford also beat us 4 out of 5 times in those two years
i said upthread that i thought oregon was more talented than us in 06-07 and stanford was more talented than us both years.
WSU was more talented than UW those years. Hawes was cancelled out by Baynes and Brockman and Pondexter were both very young.
i think we’re confusing “talented” with “athletic”. WSU was not an airport team, by any means. i’ll give you that. but they were very very talented. that wasn’t a group of scrubs that Tony magically turned into a top 10 team.
by BigWood! on Jan 8, 2012 5:31 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with your point, they obviously weren't a bunch of scrubs.
I get what you mean about the difference between talented and athletic. I guess what I’m thinking is that none of them were elite players, able to take over a game and carry their team individualy to victory (like a James Harden, Derrick Williams, or Kevin Love). Together the 4 of them, and the rest of the team, were able to play so well as a team that they maximized each of their talents and had a lot of success.
Yet!
This is how SO MANY of our fans feel about what WSU would have been able to accomplish with Tony Bennett — or another coach “just like him” who recruits the same kinds of players and coaches the same pack-line system.
You’re 100% correct (“Frankly, I think this whole debate about "sustainability" is missing the point. Every team has ups and downs, other than like Duke or Kansas”), but because Tony ran before the down cycle could ensue, you’ll never be able to convince them otherwise.
by Jeff Nusser on Jan 8, 2012 8:41 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
And this isn't green because?
Attractive, Intelligent, Smart A**
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Jan 9, 2012 9:10 PM PST up reply actions
Lightning in a Bottle?
C’mon Nuss!
If 2007 and 2008 were lightning in a bottle, than how come he has Virginia contending this season in the flipping ACC? His team has what, one or two losses right now?
It didn’t take Bone four seasons to implement his system at Portland State, he had them in the Dance in like his second year on the job.
The Pac has been garbage the last couple of seasons, and Bone has had far too many no-shows and blown contests for me to accept.
It's probably a bit early to say Virginia is "conetending"
They’ve played one ACC game, which they won over Miami by a point at home. He has yet to accomplish anything even remotely approximating 2007 and 2008 at Virginia. Since this conversation is about whether it could be sustained at WSU, the fact that he still hasn’t been able to really replicate it with all of the resources in Virginia would seem to support my side.
And Bone made the NCAA tournament in his third and fourth seasons — after huge infusions of transfer talent, oddly enough …
agreed. Bennett just pulled in his 3rd straight top-25 recruiting class
Virginia has too many resources to have to resort to "lightning in a bottle.
7 of the 13 players on their roster are top 100 recruits on Scout, with another 3 coming in for 2012.
Virginia was freaking terrible when they hired him
I don’t know that he’s actually done that well since he’s been there— and he’s certainly had real issues picking players, as evidenced by the huge number of transfers out that the team has suffered. But… comparing the talent that Bone inherited to the talent that Bennett inherited is… well, not much of a comparison. It was pretty much Mike Scott and the seven* dwarves when Bennett showed up.
*Figure of speech— I don’t actually know how many other returning scholarship players Virginia had.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Sure they’re only one game intot he conference slate, but you must not have the same idea as being a contender that I do.
Considering a) where that program has been the last decade b) only two or three other teams look like they could win the league c) The Cavs are a one point loss away from being undefeated
Well, let's see
A) has absolutely nothing to do with anything. You’re talking about whether they are a “contender” now. History is irrelevant.
B) Duh – it’s the same two teams every year, silly.
C) against the 323rd ranked nonconference schedule.
Listen, Virginia might indeed be good. I’m just saying let’s cool our jets a little bit before we pencil them in for a top three finish in the ACC.
Well if it took the Bennetts four years to "introduce the system," maybe Bone is still in the ugly part of his job
The blood of "The Five" cries for justice.
Yeah, and the really sorry thing is we're seeing a 'turnaround' under Bone
from the most successful run in WSU hoops history to what? As the saying goes, if it aint broke don’t fix it…
Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits
by Say Howdy Kid on Jan 7, 2012 10:32 PM PST up reply actions
So if it wasn't broke, why did Bennett run like a bat out of hell?
by Brian Floyd on Jan 7, 2012 10:38 PM PST up reply actions 5 recs
Dude, what the f*** does that have to do with anything?
You’re really stretching to toe the company line here.
Q. Why does a successful, ambitious person leave for another job?
A. More money/more status/more opportunity.
I know you know this but you asked the question. Pullman has always been a stop along the way and never a destination. AD Moos is intent on changing that. I hope he’s successful.
Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits
by Say Howdy Kid on Jan 7, 2012 10:50 PM PST up reply actions
Then why did you use the old saying...
“If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.”
Really sounds like your issue is with Sterk for not hiring the next TB. Because what TB left behind was broken for just about anyone else
It is not the size of the gift that demonstrate support…it’s the action of joining.
There is that risk but I just don't see Dick and Tony hiding a dirty secret
I think their system of defense first and team above all else is a winner for a smaller program like ours. And for several years they seemed to prove it so I don’t see why we couldn’t repeat it, if not every year at least more often than not.
Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits
by Say Howdy Kid on Jan 7, 2012 11:06 PM PST up reply actions
I think you're giving him too much credit
Theres nothing dirty, necessarily, about seeing the writing on the wall and running. The signs are right in front of you, and have been. Up to you whether you choose to see them.
by Brian Floyd on Jan 7, 2012 11:18 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Several years?
Three out of six. I know we want to think it was sustainable, that we were going to be in the NCAA tournament more often than not. But I think that’s very questionable.
And I'm being generous in saying three out of six, by the way
One could easily say two out of six. The third year was a token NIT appearance that resulted in a first round blowout … with far and away the two best players from that team graduating.
Is it that having much, much more money is, all things being equal, better than having much, much less of it?
I have no idea why someone would stretch to find conspiracy theories for why he left when the obvious motive is staring them in the face.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
So tell me this
Why did he turn down much, much more money the year before at jobs that were, on paper, much much better than Virginia?
by Brian Floyd on Jan 8, 2012 8:44 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Since I don't read minds, I have no idea
For starters, I’m not even convinced your premise is right. The offers I saw from Google searching were rumored to be Cal and Indiana. Assuming that those offers were actually on the table, Cal pays much less than Virginia does. Further assuming he would have gotten a similar deal to Tom Crean at Indiana (which, I note, was hardly a great situation back in 2008), it would have been about the same amount per year. Virginia is paying him a ridiculous amount of money, even by college-coach standards.
But let’s assume arguendo that he actually did turn down more money the year before. Why not a year later? Maybe he changed his mind. Maybe he really liked Taylor Rochestie and didn’t want to leave before his senior season. Maybe he got sick of living in Pullman. The number of possible explanations is as broad as the scope of human experience. I have no frickin’ idea what the decisive factor was, and neither does anyone else here.
Why did Dana Altman leave Creighton, come back, then leave again? Does that mean that his decision to leave Creighton was because of some weird ulterior motive and not money, since he’d have gotten piles of money at Arkansas?
This stuff is as baseless as making conclusions about players’ “heart” based on making some bad plays in a game. There’s no concrete evidence, just speculation and conspiracy-mongering.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
by PaulThomas on Jan 8, 2012 3:16 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Or, to phrase this in a less tl/dr fashion:
Absent any real evidence that people who leave for higher-paying jobs are acting with motives other than seeking more money, I’m going with money every single time, because it’s quantifiable.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Um, you're the one who said the motive was obvious.
And then you’re the one who said “The number of possible explanations is as broad as the scope of human experience.”
So which is it?
And by the way, it might be worth noting that we might know more about this than the layperson, but don’t have the permission to take the whole story public, so instead we leave cryptic responses to challenge people to think a little be deeper about what might have been going on.
By the way, he also was rumored for Marquette and LSU.
And I think it’s safe to assume Indiana was, in fact, on the table. And given that Crean is making more than $2 million a year, I think we can assume the money would have been better. Buzz Williams also makes $2 million a year, but that was after a recent raise.
Point is, if money was his primary motivator for heading to Virginia, why didn’t he leave the first time all that money was waved in front of his face? “Maybe he changed his mind.” OK! So would it not be reasonable to think that there’s a reason — or combination of reasons — he changed his mind? Wait, you said that too! But just because you have no idea what the factor was, doesn’t mean we can’t use information we’ve gathered to assess probable reasons. And there are some probable reasons.
On top of that
Indiana may have been in a down cycle. But that is one of the premiere positions in the country. I would put it right up there with Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, UCLA, and North Carolina in terms of history and prestige. So why turn down Indiana and take the Virginia job? Aside from some family connections to the area.
Didn't Bennett sort of break it?
I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. Ugh
Yes...they developed into being "stars"...
…but that was certainly no sure thing when they came in as scrawny freshmen.
They both figuratively kept their heads in the books and worked hard to learn to play very well in the then Pac-10.
by westsidecougar1 on Jan 7, 2012 10:04 PM PST up reply actions
Seems kind of a moot point to label this a "poor performance"
I think Jeff’s post adequately sums up the game. Our offensive efficiency was horrific. Colorado did go on cold streaks where they weren’t shooting the ball well and seemed to have some streaks where they were just getting one open look after another. But, to me, that seemed to be the product of good ball movement. At the end of the day they were still at 39%. But to call this a “poor performance” suggests that we are capable of playing with Colorado and I don’t think that is the case. If this game is played 10 times, the results would be consistent 9 out of 10. This team has had “good performances” a total of three time this year (EWU, SC, and OSU) and those were games in which we had bigtime mismatches in the paint. 3 out of 16 games have been good for us. My point is that this is just very expected and I can’t call it a poor performance just based on the numbers. Inferior teams just put up poor numbers to superior teams.
The blood of "The Five" cries for justice.
They might not be capable of beating Colorado on a regular basis
But I would think they’re capable of playing better than this. Perhaps you’re right, and they’re not.
Having only watched one game this year,
what is wrong? Is it a lack of personnel, young team, poor coaching, bad luck, ect?
Yep.
"Tonight, we skate with them. Tonight, we stay with them. And we shut them down because we can!" | Herb Brooks
by Coug999 on Jan 7, 2012 5:24 PM PST up reply actions 7 recs
That deserves a rec from me too.
Good one.
by westsidecougar1 on Jan 7, 2012 8:25 PM PST up reply actions
I am excited about the kansas transfer and the class coming in
but I don’t know if Moos is going to be that patient. The level of basketball that we are playing right now is mind blowing after what was built. I also cannot for the life of me understand why Bone loves Aden so much.
Really wants a scoring guard?
Wants a wing playmaker? Thinks he’s a useful "spark off the bench? I certainly don’t think Aden fits the bill for these, but who knows. There’s a reason I’m not an NCAA Men’s Basketball head coach though so I fully encourage Coach Bone to disregard my input.
Bone did inherit Bennett Ball
Which I loved, but is completely different from the type of style Bone wants to run, I think Bone will get at least one more year. Next year hell have all his players, and some real good recruits coming in. Hopefully things pick up next year, or you could see Moos start looking for possible coaches, and shoot if its as good of signing as Leach, im all for Moos to be the search committee again
@korbm13
Hate to say it
but I also I think the seniors leaving this year will be addition by subtraction
The blood of "The Five" cries for justice.
by PullManiac on Jan 7, 2012 6:53 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
If only someone had been saying this since October :)
Welcome, my son.
Honestly though...
with the exception of Lacy and Reggie, I don’t think he has brought in even a mid-pac 12 caliber player. If Peter’s the center recruit he finally got isn’t instant impact our inside presence next year is going to be brutal again. I would also love to understand what Bone’s defensive philosophy is besides soft and lazy. I also can’t see very many more wins on our schedule as Utah doesn’t come to Pullman this year. We might actually finish worse than Utah who was predicted to be the worst D1 program this year.
Que Johnson
Was recruited by the Zags, uw, and UNLV….hes suppose to be the real deal
But yeah Im not the biggest fan of his offensive game plan, it just seems like its not very organized, sometimes there’s moments of brilliance but most of the time its sloppy and not very productive at all.
@korbm13
NCAA basketball is crazy, we will get some wins somewhere.
CougCenter OG since 9/2/2008 | @TheSoCalCoug
The weekend road trip was a Rocky Mountain Low.
[Opens up some Colorado Kool-Aid while listening to John Denver]
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on CougCenter
Related FanShots on CougCenter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
